On 2021-04-10 12:48 p.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 12:44:43 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2021-04-10 11:45 a.m., jmcquown wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2021 11:33 AM, cshenk wrote:
>>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I consider all the jokes on his death to be in the worse of taste.
>>>>
>>> Very poor taste. The man didn't do anything to earn the ire of a bunch
>>> of people on a cooking newsgroup.
>>>
>> I merely asked who would fill the vacuum. That vacuum would be the
>> position, not the man. He was to the monarch. I suppose there may be
>> some benefit to have a figurehead head of state, but the idea that an
>> inbred family of aristocrats gets to set themselves above the rest of
>> us, and to do so in accordance with a set of rules that they set up
>> among themselves is way out of date.
>>
>> There are a lot of people in the Commonwealth who would have no problem
>> with the abolition of the monarchy. I find it interesting that so many
>> Americans are intrigued by the monarchy.... when they are boasting about
>> how they disposed of it 250 years ago.
>
> Yeah, I don't get it either.
>
> I think it's mainly women, and it feeds into their "princess" fantasies.
>
>

We certainly saw that with the recent rift in the royal family. It
seems that Megan had some sort of fantasy about being a princess and
doing whatever the hell she wanted. She suggested racism was part of
the reason that her kids would not be granted the title of prince or
princess, and that the would not have security provided for them. The
rules of succession do not grant someone the position of prince or
princess unless they are directly in line for the throne, and when you
walk away from an active role in the royal family who don't get the
security that is provided for active members. I can tell you that most
Canadians were ****ed that we got stuck with the bill for their security
when they were staying for a while in Victoria. They are a rich family.
If they was security they can pay for it themselves.